Alot of players have the impression that the current ranked ladder is just "random luck". They get upset when their rating gets tanked by being placed in a match that they straight-up have no hope of winning.
Generally, this gets attributed to the problem of personal rating being assigned in a team based game.
Now this isn't actually a problem at all. Sure, in any one game, you might be unlucky and placed on a team that is totally un-carryable. But over the course of 100+ games, this will be off-set by other games where you get lucky, and the enemy team is the unlucky ones, and you have a basically free win.
So the randomness in team rosters is supposed to be off-set over the course of a season by "averaging out" the random-factor. Over the course of 100+ games, the games where you get a bad team cancel out the games where you get a good team, which means the only remaining factor is your own personal skill.
This is called "increasing the sample size". If you conduct an experiment, you repeat it to make sure it wasn't just down to luck. If you conduct a survey, you include as many people as possible, so that your result isn't impacted by random variance in the population.
The volatility in ratings is where things become problematic. In the current setup, it only takes 3 losses in a row to tank your rating down not just one, but TWO whole divisions. It doesn't matter that for the last 100 games you've consistently held a rating of X. Just those 3 games lost is enough to throw you waaaaay down the leaderboard. And likewise, it only takes 4-5 lucky wins to bump you up not one, but TWO divisions higher than you should be.
THIS is why people get frustrated with the ratings/leaderboard, and get toxic with their team-mates, because just 1 or 2 losses is enough to send them tumbling down the ratings. This is why top players camp rating, because it doesn't matter if you've been holding a top-5 spot all season, it just takes 3 unlucky games in the final week to throw you out of even the top-50. This is why after only 2-3 losses, players are liable to throw up their hands in despair and blame "the system".
Effectively, the leaderboard only cares about the last ~10 games you played, and this means that the sample-size solution to the random-team problem is being negated.
Now consider, if we increased the number of games required each season by 50% (to 180), and cut rating gain/loss by 50%. So where a win/loss before might give +10/-20, now it would give +5/-10. Now your performance over the season as a whole has greater importance, and the impact of a few lucky/unlucky recent games is diminished. Players become less anxious about winning or losing a particular game. There is less toxicity in matches. And players are forced to pay attention more to their rating as a trend over the season, rather than as simply the random result of the last ~10 games, and will therefore spend less time whining about matchmaking, duo-queue, match-manipulators, etc etc.
Why isn't this a thing?
Speaking for myself, I don't care much about by absolute position on the leaderboard. But I do care about my rating in so much as I care about getting good games. I know that if I drop 100 rating then I'll start getting put in matches that just aren't fun at all, because both my team-mates and the opposition are laughably incompetent. I have therefore, on occasion, become somewhat toxic and ragey when on a 5 game losing streak. Because just those 5 losses is enough to drop me WELL down below where I should be playing.
It doesn't have to be this way.